![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mariness on Readercon and disability- Readercon 2010 programming suggestions
- Justine Larbelestier on the whitewashing of the cover of her book Liar, as well as whitewashing in YA covers in general. Noted also: Mary Ann Mohanraj in comments on SE Asian Diaspora covers, and Neesha in The Brown Bookshelf comments:
What I don’t understand is this: this cover could have been an image of *anything*. Heck, it could’ve been a truncated body the likes of which many, many South Asian novels are presented with. The reason I’ve seen given, over and over, for not showing a face on a South Asian novel cover is because people “can’t relate” to it if it is a brown face. So, we have many, many sari-clad bellies and henna-ed feet and hands, mangoes, spices, and yes, coconuts gracing South Asian books. But rarely any faces.
I find this a really chilling pocket encapsulation of neocolonialism in general, actually. (Also see Simon Winchester's bizarrely nostalgic review of Richard Bernstein's The East, the West, and Sex ["This idea — of the East as the center of a “harem culture” so enticingly different from what is parodied as our own Judeo-Calvinist dreariness — has captivated Westerners since the first imperialists planted their flags in the heat and dust of far away. In recent years, however, it is a notion that has spiraled frighteningly out of control. Nowadays there is precious little that passes for romance about the picture: the charming 19th-century image of Kipling’s temple girl at the old pagoda in Moulmein, the “neater, sweeter maiden in a cleaner, greener land,” has been replaced by today’s obese American pederast trolling for catamites in the bars of Zamboanga, or of middle-aged sex tourists buying infants in Phnom Penh or on the beaches outside Colombo."] or better yet just skip to Bitch Magazine's brief list of women of color who have been writing about these issues for at least twenty years.)
Ablism: Comment policy clarification
Jun. 20th, 2009 05:51 pmPlease note that I ask commenters to avoid ableist language--that is, language that conflates physical or mental disability with immorality or inhumanity--while commenting.
I'm mentioning this specifically, as opposed to the other kinds of discriminatory speech, because this is a change. I myself have used almost all of the terms below in the past. I haven't always been aware of the problems with this language, and when made aware, I have reacted defensively and unhelpfully. I apologize to the people I've insulted, offended, or injured.
In particular, please do not use the following as insults or metaphorical descriptions in my space:
There are occasions where I think that "crippled" is an appropriate metaphor for how something affects us, but frequently it is used, not to convey a limitation on ability, but a sense of contempt for the person affected. Using it to convey contempt is not acceptable in this space.
I am more conflicted about "crazy." Sometimes, when I use the term "crazy," I do indeed mean "seems incapable of recognizing reality." Sometimes, from painful and intimate awareness of mental illness, particularly clinical depression, I do recognize--or think I recognize--the signs of biochemical disorder making it almost or actually impossible for someone to recognize the issues with their own behavior. However, a lot of the time I've used it as a shorthand for behaviors or attitudes which an individual can control, or simply as an insult, and I do not wish to stigmatize mental illness by associating it with moral unfitness or, again, by implying that the appropriate reaction to illness is contempt.
So I am not putting "crazy" on the forbidden list yet, but I do ask people to think twice before using it, and may warn or ban people for its abuse.
Thanks for reading.
I'm mentioning this specifically, as opposed to the other kinds of discriminatory speech, because this is a change. I myself have used almost all of the terms below in the past. I haven't always been aware of the problems with this language, and when made aware, I have reacted defensively and unhelpfully. I apologize to the people I've insulted, offended, or injured.
In particular, please do not use the following as insults or metaphorical descriptions in my space:
- Retarded
- Lame
- Crippled
- Blind
- Deaf
- Autistic
There are occasions where I think that "crippled" is an appropriate metaphor for how something affects us, but frequently it is used, not to convey a limitation on ability, but a sense of contempt for the person affected. Using it to convey contempt is not acceptable in this space.
I am more conflicted about "crazy." Sometimes, when I use the term "crazy," I do indeed mean "seems incapable of recognizing reality." Sometimes, from painful and intimate awareness of mental illness, particularly clinical depression, I do recognize--or think I recognize--the signs of biochemical disorder making it almost or actually impossible for someone to recognize the issues with their own behavior. However, a lot of the time I've used it as a shorthand for behaviors or attitudes which an individual can control, or simply as an insult, and I do not wish to stigmatize mental illness by associating it with moral unfitness or, again, by implying that the appropriate reaction to illness is contempt.
So I am not putting "crazy" on the forbidden list yet, but I do ask people to think twice before using it, and may warn or ban people for its abuse.
Thanks for reading.
Blindness &/as metaphor
Aug. 27th, 2007 10:54 amjesse_the_k criticized my use of "blindness" as an ableist metaphor and has continued the discussion here.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
